Jay,
JOHN, statesman; born in
New York City, Dec. 12, 1745;
was of Huguenot descent. Graduated at King's College (now Columbia
University) in 1764, he was admitted to the bar in 1768, and formed
a partnership with Robert R. Livingston. In 1774 he was a delegate
in the first Continental Congress, and the same year he married a
daughter of William Livingston, of
New Jersey. In that Congress,
though the youngest member but one, he took a conspicuous part,
being the author of the Address to the People of Great Britain. His
facile pen was often employed in framing documents in the Congress
of 1775. Early in 1776 he left Congress and engaged in the public
affairs of his own State, being a leading member of the Provincial
Congress in 1776. He wrote the able address of the convention at
Fishkill in December, 1776; reported a bill of rights to the New
York constitutional convention in March, 1777; and was the chief
author of the first constitution of the State of New York. After
assisting in putting in motion the machinery of his State
government, and being made a judge he entered Congress again late in
1778 and became president of that body. In September, 1779, he was
sent to Spain to negotiate a loan. Mr. Jay was one of the
commissioners for negotiating a treaty of peace with Great Britain.
He returned to New York in 1784, and was secretary for foreign
affairs from that year until the organization of the government
under the national Constitution. Mr. Jay was associated with
Hamilton and Madison in writing the series of articles in support of
the Constitution known collectively as The Federalist.
Washington
appointed Jay the first chief-justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States.

On April 7, 1794, a motion was made in the House
of Representatives that all commercial intercourse with Great
Britain and her subjects be suspended, so far as respected all
articles of the growth or manufacture of Great Britain or Ireland,
until the surrender of the Western posts and due compensation for
all losses and damages growing out of British aggressions on our
neutral rights should be made. This motion, if adopted, would lead
directly to war. Its adoption seemed probable, and Washington, to
avert the calamitous consequences, proposed to send a special
minister to England to negotiate an amicable settlement of the
existing disputes. There were grave charges of violations of
the treaty of 1783 made by the two parties against each other.
Washington desired to send Hamilton on the mission. Violent
opposition to this was made by his political enemies, whose hatred
and jealousy were intense. Fearing Hamilton might not have the
confirmation of the Senate, Washington nominated Mr. Jay (April 16),
which nomination was confirmed April 19. The special minister
arrived in England in June, where he was received with great
courtesy by the British government. He negotiated a treaty which was
not wholly satisfactory to his countrymen, closing his labors on
Nov. 19 ; and from 1795 to 1801 he was governor of
New York, under
whose administration slavery was abolished. This was his last public
office. He died in Bedford, N. Y., May 17, 1829. See
AMES, FISHER.

Jay's Treaty

After Mr. Jay's formal reception in London, Lord
Grenville, then at the head of foreign affairs, expressed great
anxiety to bring the negotiations to a successful issue. There was a
wide difference of views concerning matters in dispute. The
Americans complained that, contrary to the provisions of the treaty
of peace (1783), a large number of negroes had been carried off by
the evacuating armies; and for this loss compensation was demanded
for the owners. They complained, also, of the detention of the
Western posts, which was the main cause of the hostility of the
Northwestern tribes. They also alleged numerous violations of their
neutral rights, especially on the high seas, such as the impressment
of seamen and the exclusion of American shipping from the trade of
the British West Indies. There were other complaints on the part of
the Americans; but the matters more immediately provocative of war
were the disputed questions of neutral rights and the detention of
the Western posts. Deeming it wise to adjust these two important
difficulties, Jay thought it best to yield, temporarily, other
considerations, or leave them for future adjustment, and he was
induced to sign a treaty, Nov. 19, 1794, defective in some respects
and objectionable in others. It provided for the collection of
British debts in the United States contracted before the Revolution,
but it did not secure indemnity to those who lost slaves. It secured
indemnity for unlawful captures on the high seas, and the evacuation
of the military posts on the frontiers yet held by the British.
These were to be surrendered on June 1, 1796, the present residents
to have the option of removing or of becoming American citizens.
There was to be a mutual reciprocity of inland trade and intercourse
between the North American territories of the two nations, including
the navigation of the Mississippi; but it did not extend to the
Hudson Bay Company, nor to the admission of American vessels into
the harbors of the British North
American colonies, nor to the
navigation of the rivers of those colonies below the highest port of
entry. These were the principal features of the first ten articles
of the treaty, which were to be perpetual. Eighteen others, of the
nature of a treaty of commerce, were limited to two years. They
provided for the admission of American vessels into British ports in
Europe and the East Indies on terms of equality with British
vessels; but no terms were made concerning the East India coasting
trade, or the trade between Europe and the British West Indies.
There were restrictions upon the American trade to the British West
Indies; and British vessels were to be admitted to American ports on
terms of the most favored nations. Privateers were to give bonds to
respond to any damages they might - commit against neutrals, and
other regulations of that service were made. The list of contraband
articles was clearly defined. No vessel attempting to enter a
blockaded port was to be captured unless she had first been notified
and turned away. Neither nation was to allow enlistments within its
territory by any third nation at war with the other; nor were the
citizens or subjects of either to be allowed to accept commissions
from such third nation, or to enlist in its service, on penalty of
being treated as pirates. Ships-of-war of the contracting parties
were to be mutually admitted in a friendly manner into the ports of
each other, such vessels to be free from any claim of search, but
were to depart as speedily as might be. Other and stringent
regulations were made concerning privateers. In case of rupture or
war, the citizens or subjects of either nation resident in the
territories of the other were to be allowed to remain and to
continue their trade so long as they behaved peaceably. They might
be ordered off, in case of suspicion, on twelve months' notice, or
without any notice, if detected in violations of the laws. No
reprisals were to be ordered by either party till satisfaction had
first been demanded. Fugitives from justice charged with murder or
forgery were to be mutually given up.

Early Opposition—The treaty was concluded at
London on Nov. 19, 1794. It reached the President in March, 1795,
after the adjournment of Congress. The Senate was convened, in
special session, to consider it, early in June, 1795. After a debate
for a fortnight, in secret session, a vote of 20 to 10—precisely a
constitutional majority—advised (June 24) the ratification of the
treaty, excepting the article which related to the renunciation by
the Americans of the privilege of transportation of sugar, molasses,
coffee, cocoa, and cotton in the West India trade. Cotton was then
just promising to be of vast importance in the carrying-trade, and
such an article was wholly inadmissible. The President had
determined, before the meeting of the Senate, to ratify the treaty;
and when it was laid before the cabinet all agreed with him
excepting the Secretary of State (Edmund Randolph, of
Virginia) ,
who raised the point that by the ratification, before an obnoxious
British Order in Council concerning neutrals should be repealed, the
British claim to the right of search and impressment would be
conceded by the Americans. Hamilton, who had been consulted, advised
the ratification, but to withhold the exchange of ratifications
until that order should be repealed. The Senate had removed the seal
of secrecy from their proceedings, but had forbidden any publication
of the treaty itself. Statements concerning the provisions of the
treaty soon appeared. The Democratic societies and newspapers had
resolved to oppose and attack the treaty whatever might be its
provisions. They had opposed the mission to negotiate it. After it
was received Randolph revealed enough of its character to give a
foundation for many attacks upon it in the newspapers. It was
denounced as a pusillanimous surrender of American rights. In order
to pre-vent misrepresentations, and to elicit the expressions of the
people, Washington caused the whole treaty to be published. A mad,
seditious cry went over the land from the opposition. In several
cities mobs threatened personal violence to the supporters of the
treaty. Hamilton was stoned at a public meeting in New York, while
speaking in the open air. The British minister at Philadelphia was
insulted ; and in Charleston the British flag was trailed in the
dust of the streets. Jay was denounced as a traitor; and in Virginia
disunion was recommended as a cure for political evils. The
Democratic societies and orators put forth claims for sympathy for
France. " She has a government congenial to our own. Citizens, your
security depends on France. Let us unite with her and stand or fall
together!" shouted opposition orators throughout the country. The
Democrats adorned their hats with the French cockade. Jay was burned
in effigy in many places, and longings for the guillotine were
freely expressed in public assemblies.

When the President had proclaimed the treaty as
the law of the land, he, according to promise, sent a copy of it,
March 2, 1796, to the House. Its appearance was the beginning of a
violent debate in that body, which turned upon the question whether
the House possessed discretionary power to carry the treaty into
execution or not at its pleasure. The debate arose on a motion of
Edward Livingston, of New York, calling upon the President for his
instructions to Jay and other papers relating to the treaty. After
about thirty speeches, in a debate of three weeks, which grew warmer
and warmer the longer it lasted, the resolution was adopted, March
24, by a vote of 62 to 37. The President consulted his cabinet, and
they unanimously decided that the House had no right to make such a
call, as they were not a part of the treaty-making power. They also
decided that it was not expedient for the President to furnish the
papers, for the call should be considered as an unfounded claim of
power on the part of the House to interfere with the privileges of
the President and Senate. The President, therefore, declined to
comply with the request of the House, giving his reasons in a
special message. Resolutions asserting the majesty of the House
were introduced (April 6), and were supported by Madison. These
resolutions were adopted by a vote of 57 to 35, and the subject of
the " British treaty" was e staple topic of debate for some time
after. wards. Finally, April 30, the House passed a resolution-51 to
48-that it way expedient to pass laws for carrying the treaty into
effect.

The discussions of the treaty were soon
transferred from public meetings and the newspapers to the arena of
State legislatures. Governor Shelby, in his speech to the Kentucky
legislature, attacked the treaty. The House seemed to agree with him
(Nov. 4, 1794), but the Senate evaded any decided committal. The
house of delegates of Virginia adopted, by a vote of 100 to 50, a
resolution approving the conduct of their Senators in voting (Nov.
20) against the treaty. A counter-resolution declaring their
undiminished confidence in the President was lost-59 to 79; but
another resolution disclaiming any imputation of the President's
motives was passed-78 to 62. The legislature of
Maryland resolved
that they felt a deep concern at efforts to detach from the
President the " well-earned confidence of his fellow-citizens," and
declared their " unabated reliance in his judgment, integrity, and
patriotism." The Senate of
Pennsylvania made a similar declaration.
The legislature of New Hampshire expressed, Dec. 5, 1795, their "
abhorrence of those disturbers of the peace " who had endeavored to
render abortive measures so well calculated to advance the happiness
of the country. The North Carolina legislature, by a decided
majority, adopted a series of resolutions, Dec. 8, reprobating the
treaty and thanking their Senators for having opposed it. In the
legislature of South Carolina resolutions were introduced declaring
the treaty "highly injurious to the general interests of the United
States "; when the friends of the treaty, finding themselves in a
minority, declared the legislature had no business to interfere with
the duties of the President and Senate of the United States, and
refused to vote, the resolutions were adopted unanimously. The House
did not venture to send up these resolutions to the Senate.

A resolution declaring the treaty
unconstitutional was defeated. The legislature of
Delaware passed,
Jan. 14, 1796, a resolution of approval. Gov. Samuel Adams, of
Massachusetts, spoke of the treaty as " pregnant with evil,"
suggested a conflict of authority between the President and Senate
and the House of Representatives, and transmitted to the general
court the resolutions of Virginia on the subject of amendments to
the Constitution. The Massachusetts Senate declared their
concurrence in the belief of the governor that the national
government was in " honest hands," and the house suggested "a
respectful submission on the part of the people to the constituted
authorities as the surest means of enjoying and perpetuating the
invaluable blessings of our free and representative government." The
general court of Rhode Island expressed their confidence in the
general government. So, also, did the legislature of New York.

Site Copyright 2003-2014
Son of the South.
For Questions or comments about this collection,